Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Battles 55 reported by User:Cinemaandpolitics (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

Fourth revert happened shortly after 24h, inside 48h period. I am reporting now since the user does not engage in talk page at all.  Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one of many instances of edit warring on the page which had previously been vandalized by IPs. I have been requesting protection for this page for several days but no action has been taken. Borgenland (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting this openly POV and WP:NOTHERE edit of theirs: [9]. Borgenland (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week Not a CTOPS block, not this time, but they are definitely aware of it, and this has been a long time coming. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gymrat16 reported by User:Brotherbenz (Result: Fully protected for three days Lifted early after agreement reached)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink

User being reported: Gymrat16 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:

I have tried multiple times to get a consensus on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ice_hockey_rink page, and no effort. Keeps reverting any changes I make, to the "standards" he set for a ice hockey rink photo. I've reported before, but it wasn't 4 times. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also, deleted the first report of this, and the ANEW notice on his user page. Brotherbenz (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps reverting the ANEW notice on his talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gymrat16 Brotherbenz (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to negotiate with you look at your talk page Gymrat16 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Three days full. Talk page discussion can get a lot farther when you're not able to go back to the article and revert to your preferred version. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We came to an agreement, thanks for your help. Brotherbenz (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have accordingly lifted the protection. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert92107 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Warned)

User being reported: Robert92107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Phase 2 is not proposed, but authorized with no detailed route or funding yet"
00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252079490 by DracaenaGuianensis (talk) Prop 1A authorized Phase 2, but did not fund it"
23:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC) "clarified status of Phase 2 in intro"
13:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "changed "proposed" to "authorized"; see discussion in Talk for a full description of the need for this
16:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "factual correction in PP1, planned -> proposed; see Talk for discussion; there has actually been prelim planning done on this, which is beyond mere proposing""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

05:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

19:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Future versus Proposed */re"

Comments:

Though not strictly violating 3RR, this user is clearly showing intent to continue reverting (e.g. explicitly saying they'd go against consensus, rejecting the 3RR warning) and has been edit warring in their preferred wording for quite some time now. They are discussing but also not stopping their editing of the article itself, so I'm requesting a partial block from editing the article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by Robert92107 too, where the user has refused to engage. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Robert92107 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factual correction -- This dispute is over a misleading/incorrect modifier for the current status of Phase 2. The WRONG word is "proposed". Correct words proposed are "planned" or "future" or even no word at all. Work has been done on Phase 2, and no additional proposal or permission is necessary to incorporate this into the plan. However, Phase 2 is currently unfunded. This is discussed at length in the Talk section. FACTUAL CORRECTNESS needs to be a priority, and the current modifier is a deliberately misleading description of the status of Phase 2. Robert92107 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I'm surprised you let them off with only a warning considering that's their attitude: they think being (allegedly) right gives them the right to edit war.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:182.4.100.194 reported by User:Mhorg (Result:Semi)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I cannot warn the user because he constantly changes the IP to circumvent the WP:3RR. Mhorg (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zombie girl509 reported by User:Asdfghjkl38 (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1250709869

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombie_girl509

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Melissa_McBride

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombie_girl509#Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_warning

Comments:

Result: Both User:Zombie girl509 and User:Asdfghjkl38 are warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xaltrebor01 reported by User:Psychologist Guy (Result: EC protection)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33], [34], [35].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

Comments:

User is adding nonsensical opinions to the short description of the macrobiotic diet article including [38] "Harvard Medical School empirically, substantiated Alternative Holistic diet". Judging by their editing history, this is likely a WP:NOTHERE account. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page EC protected for one month due to promotional editing. Both sides are urged to discuss on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lunarwriter reported by User:Watercheetah99 (Result: 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments:

Blocked – User:Lunarwriter 48 hours for edit warring. User:ObiWali is also risking a block the next time they edit the article unless they obtain a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you greatly. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stosseled reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Stosseled

Comments:
Despite long-standing consensus within the MMA project to use the website Sherdog as the source of fight endings (it's reference 151 at the bottom of the section), for precisely the reason that various media organizations interpret bout endings differently and changing from one source to another results in a lot of edit warring. This system has worked well, but seemingly not well enough for this user, who knows they're right and everyone else is wrong. I invited them to start a conversation on the project talk page, which they did, but they continue to revert the edit from the neutral version until we reach a consensus (again) Nswix (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A long-standing consensus must be amended if and when it results in blatantly incorrect information that runs afoul of all other sources and common sense being routinely published, and vandals such as yourself reverting all edits that attempt to rectify the misinformation.

When you sarcastically and rudely say "[this user(me)] knows they're right and everyone else is wrong" you are not being honest because you know very well--as I've mentioned it countless times by now--that ALL other sources--all media, independent governmental bodies, all fight organizations, all grappling outlets etc--without any exceptions agree with me and disagree with Sherdog in these instances. You can not 'brabo choke' an unclothed opponent. That's undisputable.

Additionally I take issue with calling a version with blatant misinformation "neutral" unless it's being used in some Wiki-specific technical term manner.

If and when all other sources (literally all other sources!) disagree with Sherdog it is obvious where the problem lies - as is the case here. No other source agrees that this is even possible (to brabo choke an unclothed opponent) nor that these specific instances have been brabo chokes (as they are impossible in these circumstances and there is an undisputed name for these chokes in the fighting community (D'Arce choke)).

P.S. I've attempted to reference every single type of reputable source there is in these matters (who all agree bar the one some supposed guidelines supposedly insist on) and none have been deemed good enough by this clique of editors who lack the experience to even realize that they're causing blatantly obvious misinformation to be the status quo. Stosseled (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stosseled: The way to amend a consensus is to get a new one through discussion, not edit warring. Being right or believing you're right does not confer you the right to edit war.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a check user might be of benefit here, as Stosseled's first edit for 18 months, and second in 2 years, was to come to my talk page. I suspect this is Justin.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the ES, and this exact line of argument, I actually think it's this editor. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jasper. I give up. It's sad that the Wiki can be so clique-y and make it impossible for anyone to correct misinformation.

Never mind the tens of thousands of sources proving me right. It's of the utmost importance to only use Sherdog even though Sherdog disagrees with all news media, independent governmental bodies regulating these sports, all the sports organizations, the organizers, and so on in these instances.. and even though no reputable grappling outlets agree with them.

It's so much more important that this clique of editors don't have to think and evaluate a source's reliability and conformity.

Bye-bye NEDOCHAN, Cassiopeia, and Nspwifdfb, have fun.

P.S. NEDO the reason for that is because I was here in good faith, went through the edit logs to figure out what genius of grappling knowledge edited D'Arce to 'brabo choke' for a no-gi MMA fight, to tell them why it's silly and ask them to change it back wherever else they might have done this silly thing of putting the method of victory in a no-gi MMA fight to 'brabo choke'. I worry for you if your mind immediately starts coming up with conspiracies that I'm some ghost from the past.

P.P.S Let me remind you all again that these are the guidelines - they say nothing of Sherdog except that they "may be useful" like the official website:

"In the column Method, do not use your personal interpretation of a fight result in the record. Using a reliable source is important. The official website or Sherdog may be useful."

Hiding some secret consensus somewhere (I still don't even know where) and relying on it to bash other users fighting misinformation is absolutely hilarious behavior. Stosseled (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheLawMan85 reported by User:JoshuaJ28 (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:TheLawMan85

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [59]

Comments:

You literally reverted me 3 times on the Pennsylvania page today, genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLawMan85 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR says "more than 3 reverts in 24 hours" which you did. And please stop your personal attacks. Wikipedia:No personal attacks JoshuaJ28 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As happens far too many times here, the reporter has conflated the original edit reverted to with the reverts themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors reported by User:Bri (Result:Semi)

Page in dispute: C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

103.121.62.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
131.251.10.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
204.15.43.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Two or more anon editors (and possible block evasion by a registered account that was blocked due to actions on the same page) are squabbling over inclusion of a gallery, while there is an open discussion on the talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reverend Stuart Campbell reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Already blocked indef)

User being reported: Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1254015754 by AntiDionysius (talk) No justification has been offered for this reversion. Kindly discuss on the Talk page."
23:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253994035 by AntiDionysius (talk) You are required to seek consensus for your edits by discussing the matter on the talk page, not simply reverting."
22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253857657 by Augmented Seventh (talk) No reason was given for this edit and the user has not engaged in discussion on the Talk page about it in the proper manner."
07:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "As noted in the Talk page, the previous version is a plainly maliciously incomplete account of events designed to give a deliberately misleading impression. As such it is significantly factually inaccurate and Wiki rules permit me to correct it by adding relevant and sourced context."
00:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Views on LGBTQ+ issues */ Quotes cited and removed are manifestly obviously from Graham Linehan, not Stuart Campbell."
16:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253705472 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) This quote is of no relevance or significance to anything. I did not vote in the manner referenced. "Man says a thing on Facebook one day" is not a noteworthy event."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

23:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Vandalism */ Reply"

Comments:

The user I'm reporting is the subject of the article in question. See also open section at COI noticeboard: WP:COIN#Stuart_Campbell_(blogger). MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user above is plainly now acting in bad faith, rejecting consensus views and deliberately removing balancing sources. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked indefinitely by Star Mississippi. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually only p-blocked them from the article. @Daniel Case since you're here, would you or any other admin mind looking at their Talk to see if a broader block is merited. I'm logging off for the evening shortly. Star Mississippi 02:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I do wonder why we haven't warned the subject of an article so much from editing it (my understanding is that there's a COI/N thread on it), I didn't see much need for anything further at present. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This perhaps indicates we have reached WP:NOTHERE territory. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree has now blocked them indef without talk page access as a result of that edit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @AntiDionysius @Daniel Case @ToBeFree. I had disengaged after it ceased to be a productive conversation about their editing since I wouldn't be online to discuss the block. Star Mississippi 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When was it a productive conversation about their editing?

Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Hi and thanks for the pings.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Capitals00 reported by User:Adamantine123 (Result: No violation, protected)

User being reported: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

06:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Adamantine123 (talk): Don't use misleading edit summaries"
04:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edits by Adamantine123 (talk): There is a talk page discussion, use it for justifying this bloated list, not edit summaries"
18:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ekdalian (talk): Too bloated"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "/* List of people */ Reply"
07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "/* List of people */ Reply"
07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC) ""
07:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "/* List of people */ Reply"
07:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "/* List of people */Wikilinks"

Comments:

They have been blanking the content from this page and edit warring with other users like Ekdalian, even though many of the entries are sourced. I myself removed some entries which required self identification by the living people and adviced them to go selectively to remove only those entries which are based on falsified sources. But, they've resorted to mass content blanking as only solution. Also, when I put a first level warning on their page they retaliated by putting a warning on my page [60] violating WP:AGF and displaying WP: BATTLEGROUND attitude. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 reverts from me are from 3 days while the 3 reverts from Adamantine123 are from recent hours.[61][62][63] This is a case of incompetence at best because Adamantine 123 never ever edited this article before but has jumped to edit war by using misleading edit summaries such as "Nothing there in discussion section"[64] despite the discussion was there for days.[65] He also has repeatedly violated WP:NPA by terming the constructive edits by the other editors as "vandalism".[66][67] By poorly justifying only 2 entries, one by falsifying the source and another by using unreliable opinion piece, this editor is restoring a bloated list without any consensus. This is all right after he escaped a topic ban from caste topics and was warned by Valereee that such a battleground behavior can result in sanctions.[68] WP: BOOMERANG is in order. Capitals00 (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully Protected for 2 weeks. There doesn't appear to be a violation of 3RR by anyone here, but the edit-warring by ECP accounts needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.175.12.221 reported by User:Vipz (Result: Blocked 3 days)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1254123546

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1254126495

Comments:
Previously and recently reported to AN/3RR and blocked here. This appears to be a very persistent IP editor with the single purpose of edit warring over "Josip Broz Tito" and closely related articles, such as "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". The IP keeps changing, but this is a WP:DUCK. These two articles fall under WP:CT/EE and in my opinion need a permanent page protection. –Vipz (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 3 days. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnny Spasm reported by User:Ybsone (Result: No violation; user warned)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[70] "I don't think it is fair & non-partisan to call it far right."
[71] "Calling it right wing is inaccurate"
[72] (no explanation nor sources)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:
User keeps deleting "far-right" from Fascism article constantly. User was warned. Contentious topic. Please block. YBSOne (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally user commented on the place of residence of another user as if it was "all you need to know about where his politics are.". YBSOne (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I can, however, say Mr. Spasm is to consider himself warned and should cease and desist from continuing to edit against clear consensus. As, despite expectations, the article does not presently fall within a contentious topic, I cannot even give him a CTOPS alert. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Per a 1RR rule that was imposed in June, 2009, editors of Fascism are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction can be reported at WP:ANEW." YBSOne (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that 1RR may not be enforceable. An administrator enacted that 1RR in a discussion from 2009 at Talk:Fascism. There does not seem to be any community sanction or a WP:CTOP that would justify such a restriction. (A single administrator can't enact a 1RR on their own). The best you could do is refer to Talk:Fascism/FAQ to show there is an established consensus and then request admins to enforce that by blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards